But you still can't deny that it's not a problem in other countries, because guns aren't available, and it still isn't Prescription drugs as a lot
is trying to blame.

Statistic doesn't help the "8000" killed( I know not all are murders ).

Giving people guns is a bad idea when some people can't handle it, then there will always be some who fall victims, even though you arm the people to
protect them self.

What other countries?

The Czech Republic has one of the highest firearm ownership rates of Europe AND they have very similar views toward firearm ownership that Americans
do and don't have nearly the rate of violence we do.

What about countries who severely restrict firearms ownership and have comparable violent crimes rates?

The common string isn't the gun. The fact is comparing US problems with that of other countries only shows that the problems are far deeper than
ascribing blame to an object or access to an object.

In fact economic and health issue have far more to do with crime in general and violent crime in particular than any other factor to include the
ownership of firearms, legal or otherwise.

Well even with the lowest statistic of Defensive Gun Use, 100,000 crime and assaults were prevented a year by guns. That's a whole lot more than
those that were killed, and even that number (those killed) is in decline.

Seems like the gun grabbers don't understand the world they have created. They want their debate opponents to use logic, but they always appeal to
emotions. And now they want to blame the world for being irrational.

It reminds me of when Oprah Winfrey was sued for saying American Beef was tainted with Mad Cow disease. A year later, after the dust settled, and
they looked at the sales of beef.... surprise surprise... beef sales had actually gone up.

The consumerist trained impulse buyers of this country had seen an hour long special about the dangers of Mad Cow disease and thought to themselves
"hmmm a hamburger sounds good."

originally posted by: Mianeye
When you arm the people you are also arming the criminals, its a never ending discussion that has no solution.

When you disarm the people you do not disarm the criminals. You take away the people's protection and give it to the criminals. When you arm the
general population you increase the risks involved for criminals who want to commit crimes. Probably causing many to change their mind about what they
were planning on doing.

originally posted by: Mianeye
You can be a legal owner of a gun but you become a criminal when you use it the wrong way, so the legal owner is also a potential criminal, letting
people having guns is just a useless solution.

The same could be said for knives, cars, golf clubs or your fists. Guns will only ever be useless when bad people doing bad things are extinct.

originally posted by: Mianeye
The possible solution...Fix society, though you can never really protect yourself against the guy/girl who suddenly goes mental.

Fix society. Any idea on how to go about doing that?

People are not just sitting wanting to go out on a mass shooting spree but cant because of gun laws. Those people are in the minority. But you want to
take the protection away from 350 million people because every now and then 1 loon goes and shoots 25 people. If you all had guns that loon would not
be able to shoot so many. The ratio of crazy mass shooters compared to regular gun owning citizens is so minute. But an event like sandy hook is
targeted and blown right up and used solely as an argument for gun control. Instead of an argument for spotting and dealing with the mentally ill.

Take away guns and criminals will still use them, crazies will still kill and regular folk wont be able to protect themselves.

More importantly the government are not trying to ban guns for our benefit. They are doing it for theirs!

Which is not unusual as the cops are armed, so kind of irrelevant when you have no statistic showing civil VS police.

I do not see why that is relevant, Defensive Gun Use by a police or a citizen is the same, a crime was prevented. Last I've checked a police is still
a citizen. But okay, taking out the police in the NCVS survey (which is a very low estimate of Defensive Gun Use) still leaves about 52,000 DGU a
year. That's still many times more that those killed.

The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless
of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.

Why?

Because the US Military consists of sons and daughters who would never stand against the citizenry.

It doesn't mean that we should allow automated guns in the hands of civilians. Not because there wouldn't be a civil war means that we should
justify owning a MK-47. Because then, what are you using it against? Burglars?? Because that's what people thinks. That they need a MK-47 against
burglars. And they're growing in numbers.

The future of the US and the safety of the people is about finding the right solution or the right balance and it might take a long time and probably
cost more lifes and more laws or regulations, maybe the solution is to let people arm them self with weapon of choice, only time will tell.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: swanne
2) Even if you forced every citizen turn in their guns, criminals by definition most likely will not. So advantage now goes to the criminals.

So let's make everyone become criminals. Is that what you're saying? Also, how is a simple manual 1 shot hunting gun not enough against criminal?
When did you suddenly need an automatic gun and an apc against a simple burglar? You want to scare him/wound him, not kill him with 15 bullets in 1
second.

4) Gun Homicide have decrease almost 50% since 1993 even when there is more guns than ever in circulation. I'm not saying more guns means
less crime, but you can not deny that "more guns will cause more crime" is also totally unfounded.

Another justification for everyone to have an automatic gun and an apc?

Much respect Masqua (noticed you don't post as much as you used too), but a shoulder carried surface to air missile in the hands of the New York fire
department would have changed the course of history ... one September day... long ago.

You guys let me know when you are ready to learn what this whole gun thing is really all about. I sense that some of you are close to being
ready with open ears, but I also see others who are clinging to talking points. But if you ever want to know what the heart of the whole matter is,
just let me know.

It doesn't mean that we should allow automated guns in the hands of civilians.

This is why anti-gun folks are so dismissed. Aside from the policy debate, anti gun folks tend to have no sense of the subject at all.

For instance...What the heck is an AUTOMATED gun?

Not because there wouldn't be a civil war means that we should justify owning a MK-47

2 things

1. What?

and 2. To speak to my paragraph above...What the heck is an MK-47?

Because then, what are you using it against? Burglars?? Because that's what people thinks. That they need a MK-47 against burglars.

Assuming you're talking about AK-47 semi-auto rifles and similar firearms that are NOT automatic, you should probably realize that these types of
rifles are used commonly in the US for self defense in the home.

If you had a gun you would be much safer, you could protect yourself and your family from an intruder to your home. More importantly intruders would
perhaps think twice if they knew the occupants of a house could have a gun. I believe crime would be reduced.

A simple 1 manual shot hunting gun can do that easily. No need for a 30 bullets/second automatic gun. In case you don't know.

Then there is the over bearing government. Our leaders are not good people. They lie, cheat and kill. They do not have our best interests at
heart. They want our money and our obedience. Should we step out of line they want to easily be able to take us out of society and put us in prison or
have us killed. We have already let these bad people take control of our nations. And now we are letting them take our defences and rights to protect
ourselves. We are taking guns from good people and allowing bad people to keep them.

If that ever happens, they won't let you get your gun. They'll shoot you down before you can even pull the trigger. And more importantly, if
they deem a sector as expendable, they'll drop a bomb there.

They had decades to start a war with the people. They haven't. Don't start one by becoming 40 millions Rambos.

Assuming you're talking about AK-47 semi-auto rifles and similar firearms that are NOT automatic, you should probably realize that these types of
rifles are used commonly in the US for self defense in the home.

I am talking about the military-grade guns that a teenager used to kill ten to twenty childrens last year. For some reason, his mom had military guns
in her house, and the teenager used them. That is what we're trying to ban. Even AK-47 rifles are completely unnecessary against burglars. A simple
1-shot manual hunting gun can do the trick. Or a Taser.

How many gun fights have you been in to make this determination?

You know so little about guns, how in the hell can you lecture anyone on the defensive use of them?

Say so the man who has an avatar holding a military-grade rifle. What are you gonna do? Put 30 bullets in the chest of a burglar? That's your idea of
self-defense?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.